108
The Sad Unusability of Video Game Reviews (bottomfeeder.substack.com)
submitted 1 month ago* by to c/games@sh.itjust.works
48 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

"So I was trying to write reviews of a bunch of hit indie games I played recently. Then I got overwhelmed by the pointlessness of video game reviews these days and had to take a long nap.

And, I mean, pro reviews are pointless, right? If a game has a big enough budget or following and isn’t actively on fire, it gets a 9. If it is a competently made but low-budget indie, like mine, it gets a 7. If you read the actual review (nobody does), it’s a collection of facts about the game you could easily get from watching the trailer. Throw in a couple of comments from the reviewer about whether they like this genre or not, mix in 3 or 4 ham-handed political comments, and you got a review! Hit send!"

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 6 points 1 month ago (1 child)

The main point seems to be that individual reviewers don't have recognizable voices anymore, but honestly I don't really buy the idea that reviews ever "worked" in the way that this writer seems to want them to. Any individual number was always meaningless except for knowing whether a specific person liked the thing at a specific moment in time. Maybe some people were lucky enough to know a reviewer who reliably predicted how they'd feel about the product, such that they could just look at the number and be good to go, but IMO the "feature list" has always been the most interesting part of the review, and it hasn't gone anywhere.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 4 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    I do think the author missed an opportunity to study how critics work and how they're perceived in other fields, media literacy is a lot more prevalent in other art forms like cinema or literature, which leads to more value being given to reviews, which is lacking in the video game industry imo

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 month ago*

    I think a big part of the problem is the time investment and the fact most people really vibe with only a few types of games.

    On time investment: in order to say anything interesting about the game, anything you couldn't get from watching someone play it for two minutes, you'd need someone to take the time to finish it, often 50+ hours, and probably more to digest it and to play stuff around the sides (achievements, collecting. Given an 8 hour work day, and reasonable breaks, that's easily a week or more of just playing before you start writing. Then you've got to write with better insight into mechanics, design etc than the average guy, which a lot of critics fail at. Not just what mechanically does the game do, but clearheadedly why is that different, what makes that good and bad, how do they reinforce or work against the games themes.

    On subjectivity: I could not review a first person shooter. I could not review an RPG like Skyrim. It's not because I couldn't play those games, or even derive some enjoyment. But rather that I know my mind, and I know that I have a strategic optimizing mind that left alone would rather play spreadsheet simulator stuff like rule the waves or dwarf fortress or football manager. Complexity is my god. But that's not the route to good design for most people. Similarly, guy who only plays CSGO probably shouldn't be reviewing disco Elysium.

    All of this put together means an ideal reviewer would be working on a narrow selection of games, taking weeks or more for each one. And they'd be competing with people making excellent video essays for free on YouTube or whatever. Text is already a niche (hence declining film/book reviews also)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent